Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 210 posts

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#81

Post by fgm2r »

jules wrote: post #60
john61 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the ongoing massive costs savings it is expected that within 2015 or so it will be cheaper for house owner's to produce their own energy with photovoltaic than buying it. (Without governmental support) This will be a massive game changer: Decentralized, DIY, prosumer energy connected in a smart grid. The private rooth area and climate in for example Austria is enough to produce 1/3 of the electric energy u…

Citation needed. Is this with photo-voltaic cells built with dangerous and scarce materials?

According to [1] photovoltaic energy might be competitive in Germany by 2012/2013 in regions with a lot of sunshine and by 2016 "in regions with less intensive sunshine." (I'm not sure whether "less intensive" means average.) These numbers assume consumer prices and no subsidies. For industry users competitiveness is expected by 2019.

Hawaii: already competitive (2009), California: 2011 (assuming 3kW plants)

Reuters [2] writes that "very sunny countries could reach that breakeven in five years[2012] or so, and even cloudy Britain by 2020."

The breakeven is called Grid Parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

[1] http://www.wm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fm7/1106/Endbericht%20Br... (German, 2009, this is the report cited by taz.de)

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/19/environment-solar-... (2007)

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#82

Post by vukk »

john61 wrote: post #73
jules wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. Is this with photo-voltaic cells built with dangerous and scarce materials?

http://www.taz.de/1/zukunft/umwelt/artikel/1/solarstrom-wird...

Taz seems to be a rather leftist newspaper, wouldn't take it at face value.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#83

Post by lispm »

ugh wrote: post #77
lispm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See Fukushima for the cost of running nuclear power plants. The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel. Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel. The cost for that adds up every day.

I don’t think the cost for dealing with waste adds up. It stays (pretty much) constant: High fixed costs and very low variable costs. Dismantling a nuclear power plant doesn’t get more expensive just because they are running longer. When it comes to waste, finding a site and building the infrastructure is expensive, the cost of dealing with additional waste from letting the plants run longer has to be negligible. Whe…

we don't have even a viable intermediate solution. Which would have to be built.

The spent fuels are full and provide a new danger. See Fukushima on the effects of full spent fuel pools in times of an nuclear accident. Reactor five had also recently a loss of cooling for it.

Currently much of the used fuel is stored on site. This has never been planned, costs additional money, and provides new dangers.

Plus, for a storage solution it definitely makes a huge difference if we have to store the nuclear waste of ten reactors running ten years or of twenty reactors running 50 years. The cost is not the same.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#84

Post by ignifero »

erikb wrote: post #28

I'm a German and I think myself that it is really stupid. The way to think should not be "Don't do nuclear power anymore" but "do X". We have no plan what X is. So we didn't solve any problem.It's so frustrating. We really had a chance with the strong movement from most people here.

Alternative energy sources are a viable "do X", and not just left-green propaganda. I read somewhere that as soon as 2013, solar power is going to be as cheap as coal [citation needed], which is an important milestone. If projects like Desertec move on, large parts of europe could be solar-powered within our lifetime. The Germans were always ahead of the rest of us in these matters.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#85

Post by Typhon »

lispm wrote: post #74
ugh wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping old nuclear power plants running is not expensive, building them is expensive. Dismantling nuclear power plants is also expensive but there is no way around those costs, anyway.

See Fukushima for the cost of running nuclear power plants. The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel. Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel. The cost for that adds up every day.

How many people died at Fukushima ? 1

How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone.

See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html

Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#86

Post by ugh »

lispm wrote: post #83
ugh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the cost for dealing with waste adds up. It stays (pretty much) constant: High fixed costs and very low variable costs. Dismantling a nuclear power plant doesn’t get more expensive just because they are running longer. When it comes to waste, finding a site and building the infrastructure is expensive, the cost of dealing with additional waste from letting the plants run longer has to be negligible. Whe…

we don't have even a viable intermediate solution. Which would have to be built. The spent fuels are full and provide a new danger. See Fukushima on the effects of full spent fuel pools in times of an nuclear accident. Reactor five had also recently a loss of cooling for it. Currently much of the used fuel is stored on site. This has never been planned, costs additional money, and provides new dangers. Plus, for a st…

This need is there whether we stop in 2022 or 2032. It doesn’t make a difference.

Also: High fixed costs, low variable costs. It’s as simple as that.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#87

Post by lispm »

vladd wrote: post #3
sapper2 wrote: post #2

Good move aka burning bridges. If managed right, this will enhance the development and use of better technologies.

Nuclear is the safest form of energy that we currently have. More people die from installing solar panels than deaths occurred in nuclear accidents: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener... .

The difference is, you can install a solar panel on your house.

A nuclear reactor is a high security area which is not open to the public.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#88

Post by ugh »

Typhon wrote: post #85
lispm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See Fukushima for the cost of running nuclear power plants. The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel. Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel. The cost for that adds up every day.

How many people died at Fukushima ? 1 How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone. See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.

Expenses, not deaths, were the topic of discussion.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#89

Post by pella »

StavrosK wrote: post #18
vladd wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is the safest form of energy that we currently have. More people die from installing solar panels than deaths occurred in nuclear accidents: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener... .

How many people die from building and maintaining nuclear power plants?

Chernobyl accident .. cancer

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/full

"Models predict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#90

Post by Typhon »

Typhon wrote: post #85
lispm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See Fukushima for the cost of running nuclear power plants. The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel. Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel. The cost for that adds up every day.

How many people died at Fukushima ? 1 How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone. See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.

In that case, Fukushima is even less relevant to the discussion.
Post reply on HN